Liberal Forum

Huey » 06 Jan 2024, 2:16 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:16 pm

That's already.  The US SUPREME COURT will be hearing this case shortly.  A date has been set. 

Good luck.

Guess what SCOTUS won't be debating...

R.Suave » 06 Jan 2024, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:25 pm

Guess what SCOTUS won't be debating...

Whether or not you're an idiot?
 

R.Suave » 06 Jan 2024, 2:25 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:25 pm

Guess what SCOTUS won't be debating...

I only hope for a 9-0 decision.

But at least you learned what a real insurrection looks like.

Huey » 06 Jan 2024, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:28 pm

I only hope for a 9-0 decision.

But at least you learned what a real insurrection looks like.

SCOTUS won't be examining the facts established by the Colorado courts.

You can't teach anyone anything, Tiny...

Ask me why.
 

RedheadedStranger » 06 Jan 2024, 2:27 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:27 pm

Whether or not you're an idiot?

Don't be so bitter.

Makes you look small tiny.
 
 

R.Suave » 06 Jan 2024, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:33 pm

SCOTUS won't be examining the facts established by the Colorado courts.

You can't teach anyone anything, Tiny...

Ask me why.

No, you are Askholio.

A court, with no jury, no conviction, no defense.  We'll see.



 

Huey » 06 Jan 2024, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:35 pm

No, you are Askholio.

A court, with no jury, no conviction, no defense.  We'll see.

A court, with no jury, no conviction, no defense

Holy **** are you ignorant.

R.Suave » 06 Jan 2024, 8:21 am » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 8:21 am

But more importantly, putting aside the fact that he hasn't been convicted, this wasn't a rebellion or insurrection. I know that the other side has really tried hard to portray it that way, but the American people don't even view it that way. Polls indicate that the public views this as a protest that became a riot. It doesn't excuse what happened.

Must be the **** law professor alive....Popular sentiment does not define either crimes, or terms.

I need a name for this **** fool....and it ain't Turley..

How 'bout *** kicker?

R.Suave » 06 Jan 2024, 2:37 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:37 pm

Holy **** are you ignorant.

It was a bench trial.  

Even for a legacy college boy you are stoopid.  Wasn't GWBush a legacy admission?  

Huey » 06 Jan 2024, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:39 pm

It was a bench trial.  

Even for a legacy college boy you are stoopid.  Wasn't GWBush a legacy admission?

A CIVIL proceeding, you **** idiot.

Remember, you always get this stuff wrong.

Ask me why...
 

RebelGator » 06 Jan 2024, 2:38 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:38 pm

How 'bout *** kicker?

The OP is too embarrassed to name the author.

R.Suave » 06 Jan 2024, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:41 pm

A CIVIL proceeding, you **** idiot.

Remember, you always get this stuff wrong.

Ask me why...

During a recent weeklong bench trial, testimony in the Colorado case concerned the history of Section 3, the meaning of its language, constitutional scholarship, the attack on the U.S. Capitol in 2021, and Trump’s role in motivating a mob of supporters to engage in insurrection. 


I know it was a civil proceeding, idiot.  I didn't get anything wrong.  I was correct when I stated there was no conviction.  And as I have educated you recently the burden of proof in a civil proceeding IS MUCH LOWER than a criminal trial.

So all you have is civil preceding, with a bench trial, no jury, no conviction, etc.  I was correct.
 

R.Suave » 06 Jan 2024, 2:34 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:34 pm

Don't be so bitter.

Makes you look small tiny.

Coming from someone that's only 5'1", I'll take that as a compliment.

R.Suave » 06 Jan 2024, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:41 pm

The OP is too embarrassed to name the author.

I'll bet it's not some guy dressed in a Captain America costume.

Z09 » 06 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm

They won't be examining facts?

No....the facts have been established.

They will examine the constitutional questions and whether the standard was met in the Colorado case.

But, no, they will not declare Grifty innocent.

RedheadedStranger » 06 Jan 2024, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:46 pm

I'll bet it's not some guy dressed in a Captain America costume.

He's got a name.

Stay down.

RedheadedStranger » 06 Jan 2024, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:45 pm

Coming from someone that's only 5'1", I'll take that as a compliment.

Missed a zero.

Huey » 06 Jan 2024, 2:45 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 2:45 pm

During a recent weeklong bench trial, testimony in the Colorado case concerned the history of Section 3, the meaning of its language, constitutional scholarship, the attack on the U.S. Capitol in 2021, and Trump’s role in motivating a mob of supporters to engage in insurrection. 

I know it was a civil proceeding, idiot.  I didn't get anything wrong.  I was correct when I stated there was no conviction.  And as I have educated you recently the burden of proof in a civil proceeding IS MUCH LOWER than a criminal trial.

So all you have is civil preceding, with a bench trial, no jury, no conviction, etc.  I was correct.

I know it was a civil proceeding, idiot.  I didn't get anything wrong.  I was correct when I stated there was no conviction

In a civil proceeding there is a finding, or judgement, not a conviction, you **** *******.

 

R.Suave » 06 Jan 2024, 3:07 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 3:07 pm

In a civil proceeding there is a finding, or judgement, not a conviction, you **** *******.

Duh!  Never said otherwise.  You are just proving what I said.  You thought you had a gotcha moment but you didn't.

R.Suave » 06 Jan 2024, 3:05 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2024, 3:05 pm

Missed a zero.

I've seen your pictures.